Talk:Anthozoa/GA1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Cwmhiraeth in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 04:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply


Comments by Dunkleosteus77 edit

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "strengthened by calcareous and other materials," I think "calcerous" is an adjective, so I'd say replace it with "calcium carbonate"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • In the Diversity section, it sounds like the Octocorallia and Hexacorallia have already been discussed, but they haven't yet. Generally I like to put the phylogeny first to bring up all the broad overview stuff, and then move on into more specific branches later   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
The wikilinking business is difficult. I have removed some links that were duplicates and added some where the terms first appeared, but I have left some like "taxon" and "taxa", "symbiosis" and "symbiotic", "Antipatharia" and "black coral", and in the tables because I think they are needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I can't complete it because Google Books is restricting which pages I can access. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Because it is an important order of stony corals and is mentioned in the classification given above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
But why is it more important than all the other Paleozoic anthozoans?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well the classification in the "Phylogeny" section is referenced to WoRMS and that recognises Rugosa as a valid taxon but not Tabulata or Heliolitida. I will remove "Rugosa" if you like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
No it's fine, I was just wondering   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • ref no. 32 has a doi 10.1017/S1089332600000073
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • you might want to be consistent on how you form the access dates (like choose between 24-7-17 and 24 July 2017)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
I didn't know what to do about that so I replaced the image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply